Real estate agents who are up on the latest technology are at a distinct advantage these days. They can search the market on behalf of buyers and set up appointments almost instantly; for sellers, they can create videos and marketing plans at the touch of a button or two.

Those who still operate like they did in the old days -- that is, just a few years ago -- can still get the job done, but it's often a slow, arduous task. It's like driving a six-cylinder car on five cylinders. It will still get you there -- eventually -- but it won't be a smooth ride.

Whether old-fashioned or tech-savvy, though, some agents are being held back from the best, newest versions of their greatest tool: their local multiple listing service, or MLS.

An MLS is a cooperative database of houses for sale in a local or regional market. There are nearly 600 MLSs across the country, powering more than $2 trillion in annual residential sales. Using a specific format, agents can search these databases for houses listed by other agents. They can specify any number of criteria, from the number of bedrooms and bathrooms to swimming pools and acreage.

Even when people shop online before contacting an agent, an MLS is valuable because it sets the rules of the road -- protecting consumers as well as agents and brokers.

In effect, MLSs are the governing bodies by which houses are bought and sold within a given market area. Listing services rule the roost. Without them, there would be chaos.

But some MLSs are being prevented from modernizing by their own business rules -- the foundational instructions that guide technology firms in deploying their products and services inside their systems. And that's keeping their agent-members from adopting the newest technology.

No one disputes the need for these rules; they are vital in allowing MLSs to copyright their proprietary information and determine how that data is organized and presented.

But without getting too deep into the weeds here, some listing services are still operating under outdated, sometimes inaccurate, regulations and controls. They may have switched vendors, for example, or changed their software in some way that is in conflict with what the rules require.

For example, suppose an MLS wanted to adopt a new technology that would speed up the system and keep listings up-to-the-minute fresh. But if the rules contained an outdated mechanism that requires two software components to communicate with each other -- or if the mechanism no longer existed -- the tech firm would have to start over from scratch.

Consequently, vendors tell me that flawed business rules extend the time it takes to integrate the latest software, as well as the time it takes to deploy it after it is successfully incorporated. And they could create a liability and possible litigation risk for the MLS, leading to increased costs.

Ocusell, a platform working to modernize the listing process, is one firm finding it difficult to penetrate the boundaries of the outmoded firewalls around MLS data. And it is not alone.

"It's not just us that's trying to break through antiquated rules," co-founder Hayden Rieveschl told me in an interview. He said outmoded rules have become "a huge barrier to implementation. They are creating major headaches."

Bill Fowler, a real estate technology veteran, said he has "repeatedly run up against" obsolete rules over the course of his 23-year career. He adds that MLSs, which started out as printing companies publishing books of listings but are now basically technology firms, have been slow to adapt.

Greg Moore is chief technology officer of RMLS in Portland -- one of eight MLSs in Oregon and the only one with its own development team. He says the rules many listing services use "have evolved over decades."

"(Services) don't have a single document that says, 'These are our rules,'" Moore explains, "so they almost have to reverse-engineer the process to get to the point where they can add or change content."

Both Rieveschl and Fowler have empathy for listing services trying to deal with the problem. "Business rules often are unreliable because they can be tedious and expensive to maintain," Rieveschl explains.

"It's not because they are against change," adds Fowler. "It's governance that's the problem. They recognize they need to change with the times, but they are not structured to work that way."

The good news is that MLSs are accelerating their adoption of new technology from various vendors. And as more of them merge with one another, they acknowledge the need to update their business rules so they can onboard new tools for their agents and brokers -- and ultimately their members' clients.

Fowler, for one, says "the tide is turning." Some MLSs, he reports, are now hiring staff whose job is to "go out and find the newest technology."

"The easier we can make it for MLS members to integrate with cutting-edge tech," says Rieveschl, "the more MLS members, buyers and sellers will benefit."

While late-night TV scams and robocall schemes are coming under increased scrutiny by state and federal officials, new real estate-related swindles continue to come to light.

The latest is what title company executive Thomas Cronkright calls the “owner-not-present” ruse in which fraudsters claim to be the owners of vacant lots and unencumbered properties to shoot for a quick sale by offering below-market prices.

Cronkright, who also owns CertifID, a company which works to uncover and prevent wire fraud, says the crime has “grown quickly” into the second-largest risk category of real estate fraud.

The scam first hit his radar last summer when a ring out of Germany was discovered to be focused on non-owner-occupied houses. But “now we’ve seen enough of it to realize there is a definite trend growing around vacant and unimproved property without mortgages.”

Here’s how the scam works:

The swindler searches public records to find real estate that is free of mortgages or other liens -- often vacant lots or rental properties -- and identifies the true owner. Then he poses as the owner and contacts a real estate agent to list the property for sale.

That’s exactly what happened to a lot owner in Nantucket, who found out his land was being targeted when someone who had seen the listing on Zillow called to see if he would take a lower price. He immediately ordered Zillow to remove the listing, and no harm was done.

But he’s lucky. Most owners don’t find out they’ve been had until they discover their taxes haven’t been paid.

According to Cronkright, all communications are done digitally, either through email, messaging or other means -- but never in person. The listing price is generally below market to stir immediate interest. The scammer prefers an all-cash transaction, and when an offer is made, it is quickly accepted.

The scammer refuses to sign documents in person, though. Instead, he asks for a remote notary signing. But when the papers arrive, he impersonates the notary and returns falsified documents to the title company or closing attorney. And at settlement, the proceeds are transferred to the sharpie.

Typically, says Cronkright, the fraud isn’t discovered until a point at which the documents are recorded with the applicable county, which can take days or even weeks in some jurisdictions. “The detection level is almost nil,” he told me. “And it can be an absolute mess if it reaches the courts.”

CertifID has worked with federal authorities on several of these kinds of cases. In North Carolina, a title agency and real estate agent were scammed out of $33,000 on an empty lot transaction. But CertifID worked with the Secret Service to freeze and ultimately gain the fund’s return. In two other cases, one in Ohio and the other in Florida, the supposed owners contacted real estate agents online, out of the blue, with no previous connection.

Meanwhile, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is investigating Home Title Lock for possible violations of the state’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act by allegedly misleading consumers with deceiving statements concerning the prevalence of the theft of real estate titles and the need for the company’s services.

Paxton is trying to determine if Home Title Lock’s claims and advertisements are false, misleading or deceptive. Toward that end, the California-based company has been required to turn over documents concerning its advertisements and all documents substantiating specific claims.

“I won’t tolerate false, misleading, or deceptive advertisements targeted to any Texas consumers,” the AG said in a statement. “If Home Title Lock is misrepresenting its services or the need for its services, I will put a stop to its unlawful behavior.”

Last summer, this column warned consumers about Home Title Lock’s claims that the FBI says title theft was “one of the fastest-growing” crimes in America. The FBI said it has no record of making such an assertion. And the document the company sent to ABC News to justify its claim was more than 20 years old and was about mortgage fraud, not title theft.

For about $20 a month, the company says it will monitor a subscriber’s title and notify him right away if it is tampered with. But homeowners seemed to be left to themselves if Title Lock found something amiss.

Moreover, monitoring your title is something consumers can do for themselves. And in many places, the county recorder’s office will do it for you at no charge.

At the same time, the Federal Communications Commission has taken steps to squelch the ability of MV Realty to run a robocall campaign aimed at pushing unsuspecting homeowners into signing 40-year leasing contracts. I covered this outfit in October.

Acting after attorneys general in three states -- Florida, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania -- have filed suits against MV for using misleading robocalls to “swindle” and “scam” owners into effectively mortgaging their homes in exchange for cash payments, the FCC has told telecommunications companies not to carry the suspected illegal pitches. MV Realty told me that it “only engages” with people who respond to its advertisements.

“Mortgage scams are some of the most pernicious types of robocalls we see,” said FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel. “Sending these junk calls to financially stressed homeowners just to offer them deceptive products and services is unconscionable. That’s why we are shutting down these calls right now.”

The FCC received some 1,500 unwanted call complaints from consumers related to mortgages last year.

Homebuyers hunting for financing often turn to online mortgage comparison platforms to find the lowest rates available. But some may have been duped into choosing lenders that paid these websites to put them at the top of their lists -- even though they were charging consumers more.

To date, no particular site has been charged with such illegal behavior, at least in the mortgage space. But Uncle Sam's chief financial watchdog agency has fired a warning shot across the bow of consumer-facing comparison sites and mobile apps that steer consumers to the lenders that pay the sites the most.

In 2020, the Federal Trade Commission came down on LendEDU.com on charges that the site's operators favored companies that paid for top-of-the-list placement, even though the site claimed to provide unbiased information about student loans, personal loans and credit cards.

Now, in a new advisory opinion said to be aimed at helping law-abiding companies comply with the rules, Rohit Chopra, director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, says that "if similar conduct is observed in the mortgage market, the CFPB will not hesitate to act."

The bureau calls the practice "double dealing" and says it violates the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act by guiding shoppers to lenders by using pay-to-play tactics rather than providing them with comprehensive and objective information.

"We are working to ensure that online platforms are not manipulating their search results in order to coerce kickbacks from lenders," Chopra said.

The goal is to make certain small banks, credit unions and other lower-cost alternatives can be seen. And the bureau offered several examples of how that might not happen.

For example, a "non-neutral" site could manipulate information provided by a consumer to make sure lenders who pay the site rank higher than those who don't. Or it could de-emphasize -- or even exclude -- criteria that would favor a lower-cost alternative. In other instances, platforms could provide information on all participant lenders, but only offer links to paying providers. Or sites might ever-so-slyly highlight paying lenders by showing others in a smaller font or requiring consumers to scroll down to find them.

Sometimes users are just presented a list of lenders from which operators have extracted kickbacks. Some platforms may have a financial stake in referenced companies, a conflict of interest they conveniently fail to reveal. Or they might just hand off a shopper to the highest bidder, indicating it is the best option.

There are all kinds of ways pay-to-play platforms can manipulate their algorithms. But the CFPB is having none of it.

Said Chopra: "These platforms produce results that are rigged. ... Instead of being neutral referees, (they) extract illegal kickbacks to steer shoppers towards more expensive or lower quality lenders."

Faced with such skullduggery, borrowers smart enough to hunt for low-rate financing could still end up paying thousands more in interest than necessary. And these anticompetitive schemes also hurt fair-and-square mortgage lenders, brokers and loan officers.

In fact, the CFPB says it regularly receives complaints about RESPA violations from mortgage professionals forced to pay to play -- more complaints, in fact, than it gets from consumers, who may never know they've been had.

I was told by a source, on background, that consumers' lack of complaints is "to be expected," and that it is "part of the problem." Why? Because consumers are not aware that "backdoor kickbacks distort the market."

On the other hand, the CFPB advisory said that "honest mortgage professionals shouldn't feel that middlemen get to extort fees for them to be able to compete and have their mortgage offerings seen by consumers."

The move to rein in the manipulation of digital mortgage comparison-shopping platforms is part of a broader, government-wide effort to end the illegal injection of bias into ostensibly neutral platforms.

As part of this effort, the CFPB has taken steps to combat fake reviews on digital platforms. A year ago, it issued policy guidance that posting fake positive reviews or falsifying customer ratings may be a violation of the Consumer Financial Protection Act.

The FTC, too, has advised companies that, if they use endorsements to deceive consumers, the agency will be ready to hold them responsible "with every tool at its disposal." In particular, it is looking at contractual "gag" clauses that attempt to silence consumers from posting an honest review.

More than two years ago, I wrote in this column that consumers might want to look askance at online reviews, noting that they may not be all that reliable. Better to ask for the names, email addresses and phone numbers of recent clients from any company you are considering working with, then contact them directly for their opinions.

You also can check with other sources such as your local Better Business Bureau and consumer affairs agency. And search online for the name of the company you're screening, plus the word "complaint." Realize, though, that unhappy customers tend to post their beefs much more frequently than satisfied customers post about their experiences. So personal contacts are always best.